Oy.
Now I know why the ex- wouldn't use it. Also why it's not labelled for use on humans. In fact it's a phenol deriviative.

Nice tin though.

There's a man named Gardiner who came up with a theory about different kinds of intelligence. According to him, there's 7 or possibly 8 different kinds of intelligence.

When you consider that, it leaves room for everyone to find something they're good at...and when that happens, there's going to be other people who aren't so good at the particular thing you're good at. The different catagories are:

Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")

The biggest problem is that society values some types of intelligence above others. Fortunately, I believe the worm is turning, and that can only be good for all of us.

Mrs. dar uses the multiple intelligences thing to teach her third graders. She tries to incorporate as many of the different styles of learning into each lesson that she can.

It's a very popular teaching method these days, and one well worth while considering. Mind you, Mary Poppins was probably one of the forerunners when it comes to putting theory into practice. Didn't she have a song for every occasion...making all those little experiences just that much easier to understand?

Also - never confuse skill with knowledge or intelligence.

Only in the Disney movie, as I recall. Mary in the original book was pretty freakin' far from Julie Andrews:-)

I find this interesting. Food for thought.
 

There's a man named Gardiner who came up with a theory about different kinds of intelligence. According to him, there's 7 or possibly 8 different kinds of intelligence.
When you consider that, it leaves room for everyone to find something they're good at...and when that happens, there's going to be other people who aren't so good at the particular thing you're good at. The different catagories are:

Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")
[/quote]

Couldn't there almost be a cellar poll in here somewhere? Assign a 1-10 value per category. Based only on your own unbiased self examination. Cough.

never confuse skill with knowledge or intelligence.

Thats like saying never confuse fire with wood and spark

It takes knowledge and intellingence to aquire skill , but it takes time to hone it properly .

I thought I understood intelligence when I was 22. I went to a college with a top 20 football team and became good friends with a defensive lineman that I wasn't sure belonged in college. He had a very difficult time passing his classes even though he studied very hard - I tried to help but had trouble getting even basic ideas to root.

But, start the projector and put on some game film, and he turned into Einstein. Eleven on eleven and he understood what would happen even before the coaching staff. He knew exactly what the QB was going to do even before the defensive coordinator. He went on to the NFL and had a short but successful career playing for the Seattle Seahawks. He got double teamed a lot not because he was a better athlete than his counterpart on the OL but because his football instincts were so good.

Now, had he not been 6'4" and 265 pounds and had he never gotten the chance to play HS football leading to his scholarship and a brief but prolific NFL career, would anyone have known he was smart?

Zippy - I am going to have to disagree with you here. Skill has nothing to do with intelligence (however intelligent people are usually skilled).

You will see a complicated knot tied at a crime scene, and people will want to say that the person who tied it is intelligent.
No.
They are skillful in tying that kind of knot.

A raccoon can wash off an apple better than most people - does that make the raccoon more intelligent than us?
No.
They are more skilled at washing off the apple than we are.

Sorry - not the same as spark/fire/wood. :)

Yeah, B!

In my senior year of HS I decided that I wasn't going to pass Physics because the way they taught it was ridiculous. So I took two "half classes", Computer Math and Electronics, instead. This turned out to be a glorious life-changing choice.

Anyway, the Electronics class was a "shop" class and there were only two of us there who were college and learning oriented, and we were obviously very smart and learned everything taught.

(sidebar in next post)

There was also a "dumbest" kid in that class, a kid who can't latch onto anything the teacher says. We're talking borderline retarded, to be blunt. But one day we're learning about magnetism and its relation to electricity; and the teacher mentions that sometimes a cow will eat nails; and this kid, like out of nowhere, perks up as if someone threw a switch, and explains the whole phenomenon in great detail for three minutes.

Farming was his "thing" just like football was B's friend's "thing".

(sidebar)

I already wrote this post in 2001

A few years back my now ex-wife and I were comparing notes on our high school experiences. "And I got the Physics prize, for being the best Physics student," she said. "Wow, Physics, I wouldn't have expected that," I said. "Tell me something. What's Ohm's law?"

She didn't know. The most basic law of electronics, a major part of Physics.

But I knew it - and I would never forget it - because instead of Physics, I took Electronics Shop. I would have failed Physics the way they taught it; the most important aspect of the class was good lab notes, and I was not capable of nor interested in that sort of meticulous toilet training. Instead, I took a class where I had 60 IQ points on the average kids, and learned some of the most important, lasting things ever. Because we didn't have "lab" - we just "built stuff". We wrapped our own coils, put voltage through our own circuits. We didn't take any goddamn notes; we heard and smelled the blown capacitors when somebody didn't get something quite right. We even etched our own circuit boards -- a wonderful gift to me, when I didn't even know I'd be heading into Computer Science.

Maybe some people can learn from lectures and bogus "labs" and meticulous "lab notes" and so forth. But I can't help thinking that, if I'd taken "French Shop" instead of "French", I'd still be speaking it today.

So did I. The "George W. Plummer Physical Science Award"....highest score in physics and chemistry this was. But it wasn't the class work that fed that success...it was the fact that the teachers decided I (and my buds) could be allowed to play around in the labs doing whatever we wanted to as long as when challenged we could explain what scientific principles we were exploring .

Since this was an old school, they had *good* toys in the back rooms. A scintillation counter and radiation sources. An *analog* computer (with vacuum tubes, no less; let it stabilize thermally before setting up a problem!). An extensive chemistry lab, with a decent stock room. And access to modern (well modern for 1968) digital computers. None of it part of the "official" curriculm.

I think what prepared me to take advantage of this was that when I was five or so, my daddy was an elementary school science teacher. After school every day in first grade I met up with him to take me home...and in those magic hours he would play http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Mr._Wizard and just show me stuff in the lab.

Is there an empathy smart?


More kind of 'smarts' is a book I've read. It's called "The 5 love languages of children" Someone else here at the cellar mentioned the same title for adults. I think it was footfoot but I could be wrong and it was on another thread. I don't remember which one. Seems like it belongs here as well.